I am so "butthurt" as you put it because I am a developer. If palm is able to STEAL iTunes functionality in this way then anyone can do this with any piece of software. Of course it does not affect me personally I never suggested it did, but there is a principle at stake here, the outcome of which could have a fundemental impact on anyone who writes a piece of software! Theft is theft and just on general principle I hate thieves.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Palm re-enables iTunes sync
- Thread starter 9822737
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am so "butthurt" as you put it because I am a developer. If palm is able to STEAL iTunes functionality in this way then anyone can do this with any piece of software. Of course it does not affect me personally I never suggested it did, but there is a principle at stake here, the outcome of which could have a fundemental impact on anyone who writes a piece of software! Theft is theft and just on general principle I hate thieves.
well sorry to break this to you, but if you are going to take on thievery as a whole, I could recommend tons of places/sites, it might take you a few lifetimes to get your word out though, and I have a sneaking suspicion, palm and itunes aren't the main culprits.
(think torrents,serials,etc)
just admit fanboyism, people, my gawd.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are Palm literally unable to write their own sync app? They make a phone, make an OS and apps for that OS. And then they can't write a basic sync app?
It would be nice if they would stop stealing functionality like this. I guess the lawyers will be up soon.
It would be nice if they would stop stealing functionality like this. I guess the lawyers will be up soon.
I'm not involved in this technology, but my 'passing' opinion on the matter is that because other platforms allow syncing multiple devices from multiple vendors (eg, Windows Media Player on Microsoft Windows), Palm probably feels that they should be entitled to use the main media player on the Apple platform. Frankly, it seems to me that it's only Apple's fear of their monopoly being broken that causes them to disallow anyone from using their software to sync non-Apple branded devices.
But regardless, I don't own a Palm or an iPhone so I'm not really involved. I'll stick with my little 2G Nokia thanks
LOL - This is getting silly...
I couldn't give a sh*t about Apples intellectual property or Palms marketing strategy; I own stock in neither. What i do feel is a serious issue that requires action is one USB vendor spoofing another's ID for, let's face it, just one reason and one reason alone; they're too bone idle (or lack the talent) to code they're own software. Being allowed to continue to do what they're doing has repercussions for all software developers.
Wherever you (mistakingly) think my allegiances lie, surely you must agree with that?
If not, perhaps it's time to just agree to disagree?
Sorry, you may not like Apple blocking it, but it is their right to. It's not about effecting me, it's about who is right and who is wrong. What Palm is doing is wrong and is unethical. If Palm felt that what Apple was doing is wrong, they should have filed a lawsuit or something saying Apple's control over iTunes has led them to form a monopoly, or anti-trust issues, what ever they feel like Apple is doing wrong. But, to go do wrong yourself is unethical and shows you don't give a crap about the rules either.
Thank God for your post!!We were all wondering how YOU felt about it!Now I can sleep again!
Wrong, it would be in his interest for the company he owns part of to protect its property. To avoid the potential of even being able to use that argument.
Also as a developer, I would find it offensive that someone was using my technology without asking me first.
People pay MS to licence their syncing technologies (activesync or WMP) why shouldn't Palm do the same to use iTunes technology?
Silly = you. No one should make a cup of tea because they can't boil the ocean? Just admit that you're out of arguments when you fall back on calling someone a "fanboy". My gawd.
Why do we care?
A few people are asking "How does this affect you, why do you care if palm can sync with itunes, it doesn't hurt you?"
Ill give my shot at a good reason...
Apple gives out itunes for free, they have a huge market share in music sales, yet they probably barely break even. WHY do they give out itunes for free and spend millions or billions on the itunes store to break even? Because itunes is a major feature of an ipod and iphone. iTunes is a major reason why they have sold and sell so many ipods and iphones. Hardware is where they make there money, just like with Mac OS X, they arent making billions off of a $29 operating system, they are making it off of the computers that people buy to use the OS. This is why they dont allow clones.
So to answer your question, Apple allowing any phone around to use it's holy grail (itunes) means possible loss of sales on their hardware. This means loss of money to apple and possible loss of interest to develop things we value. If people cannot hold rights to their property, there is less of a reason to spend time or money on developing or maintaining that property.
A few people are asking "How does this affect you, why do you care if palm can sync with itunes, it doesn't hurt you?"
Ill give my shot at a good reason...
Apple gives out itunes for free, they have a huge market share in music sales, yet they probably barely break even. WHY do they give out itunes for free and spend millions or billions on the itunes store to break even? Because itunes is a major feature of an ipod and iphone. iTunes is a major reason why they have sold and sell so many ipods and iphones. Hardware is where they make there money, just like with Mac OS X, they arent making billions off of a $29 operating system, they are making it off of the computers that people buy to use the OS. This is why they dont allow clones.
So to answer your question, Apple allowing any phone around to use it's holy grail (itunes) means possible loss of sales on their hardware. This means loss of money to apple and possible loss of interest to develop things we value. If people cannot hold rights to their property, there is less of a reason to spend time or money on developing or maintaining that property.
What a nonsense argument. They block the Pre from synching so they can sell more iPods and iPhones, plain and simple. Customer Support is a simple copy and paste matter if anyone should contact Apple about a Pre. After all, are Apple worried about some numpty user contacting them if their printer doesn't work?
All the people saying that its a simple matter to write your own software are missing the point. Its a simple matter for Apple to allow other products to synch through iTunes but they won't do it. Forcing other companies to write their own software just complicates matters for Apple customers, adding unnecessary bloat at the same time. Programs like Doubletwist exist, but are only known to a relatively small portion of users, and again are just adding confusion for the average user.
Palm's game is to try to get Apple to be more open with its products. Microsoft do it, Linux does it, in fact if it weren't for BSD being so open, OSX wouldn't be as stable or secure as it is.
iPods account for 70% of MP3 player sales. I won't argue that its a monopoly but it is a significant enough share for Apple to be able to throw its weight around. If this were Microsoft you would be crying foul and arguing for them to play fair against poor underdog Apple. But because Apple is the dominant player your brain washing is so successful that you will applaud every restriction they impose on you, and find excuses every time they screw the customer over.
Whilst I continue to believe that it wouldn't actually hurt Apple that much to allow Palm to sync its devices to iTunes (now that the music is all DRM free) I still think it is and should be up to Apple, because it's their app, and a free to own app at that.
Quite apart from whatever your feelings are towards Apple's stance though, I just find it very lame of Palm to be acting this way. I think it gives the impression that they are some two-bit company who have to constantly hack about to get their product to work as intended, with no secure sense of iTunes syncing being a permanent feature.
It may well only be an impression / perception, but if the Pre is as important to Palm as many seem to think it is, then it seems a risky and downright flakey-looking strategy to have a feature that comes and goes on the tide of a different company's software updates, which in turn garners an unduly large amount of attention every time that happens.
Quite apart from whatever your feelings are towards Apple's stance though, I just find it very lame of Palm to be acting this way. I think it gives the impression that they are some two-bit company who have to constantly hack about to get their product to work as intended, with no secure sense of iTunes syncing being a permanent feature.
It may well only be an impression / perception, but if the Pre is as important to Palm as many seem to think it is, then it seems a risky and downright flakey-looking strategy to have a feature that comes and goes on the tide of a different company's software updates, which in turn garners an unduly large amount of attention every time that happens.
Stop deflecting the question. This case is about intellectual property ownership. If you cannot understand this, thats tough. Usage of iTunes is subject to Apple licensing it to you - in other words they need to get permission to enter. Palm does not have permission to directly interface with iTunes. It is if I just decide to borrow your car and take it for a spin without asking for permission after dressing up like you to fool your neighbor.
This is how iTunes worked with other players in the past (before the iPod line of players) - they got Apples permission from them so they could get support (probably on an level where they cant give that to anybody else). But these guys got permission from Apple. Palm has not done so. The default answer until you get a yes is NO"
It doesnt. Customers are irrelevant because they are acting on behalf of another company. They are simply subject to pre-existing licenses or rules. It doesnt matter if using my car doesnt effect me directly (lets assume to dont get any tickets and you fill the tank up regardless of the level in it). You dont get to use something just because. You dont get to make that case. Ownership rules and usage rights are not based on a whats the harm basis. Simply because there is no immediate direct harm to you doesnt change the fact that you are not allowed to do something.
iTunes is Apples intellectual property that they have to protect. It is a product that is intended to server their business needs. As such the terms of usage gets decided by them. Until Apple changes things, Palm has to respect that.
And I as the hypothetic rights holder dont care about that. You illegally download the movie you are depriving me, the rights holder, of rights that are legally granted to me. I made that move so I can make a million bucks. Not for you to enjoy it so much you dont care about compensation.
Apple isnt depriving anybody of their music as you point out. They provide the level of access that they feel is sufficient. Guess what, thats legal.
Indeed. People try to make an emotional argument because that is exactly what Palm want you to do. As the company with the most to loose, they are trying to deflect people away from the facts and trying to substitute that with emotion and get a victory that way. Emotions are irrelevant when you look at who owns things. I can feel compassion for a hungry person who took a loaf of bread from the store, but that doesnt change the fact that I was robbed.
We need to put an end to this
This situation and subsequent arguments and analogies is becoming ridiculous.
Let's stick to facts.
Apple is a hardware company - all software they produce is to sell their hardware; iTunes/store to sell the iPod, iPhone and Apple TV... OS X to sell the Mac.
The argument that letting non Apple peripherals to sync with iTunes because it will sell more on the iTunes store is irrelevant. Apple makes very little money from the store - it is from the iPods. If Apple let non Apple peripherals officially sync with iTunes they would have to update iTunes and iTunesHelper for all of these new peripherals and do so every time a new one is released. This would be overwhelming.
Apple allows third party applications to access the iTunes library via a .XML file. Palm could very easily create an app that accesses this file and would give Pre users a full and official way of accessing their content.
Palm was "spoofing" the Apple USB vendor ID which is against the rules of the USB-IF. Whether you think they are right or not, Palms methods are outrageously misguided.
Just to cover one of the analogies - What if Apple produced a printer and only let you use that one on a Mac? - well, sorry to say so but they have every right to do so.
Also - someone mentioned USB 3.0 and LightPeak. Apples role in the production of LightPeak was overstated, Intel were working on it already - Apple just wants something faster than USB so they can reduce the number of ports on a Mac. BOTH technologies are the property of Intel so it doesn't matter which one Apple prefers - they will still have to license. Apple did embrace USB 2.0 when it came out - if you remember they were one of the first companies to use USB 1.0 when it was released on the original iMac.
This situation and subsequent arguments and analogies is becoming ridiculous.
Let's stick to facts.
Apple is a hardware company - all software they produce is to sell their hardware; iTunes/store to sell the iPod, iPhone and Apple TV... OS X to sell the Mac.
The argument that letting non Apple peripherals to sync with iTunes because it will sell more on the iTunes store is irrelevant. Apple makes very little money from the store - it is from the iPods. If Apple let non Apple peripherals officially sync with iTunes they would have to update iTunes and iTunesHelper for all of these new peripherals and do so every time a new one is released. This would be overwhelming.
Apple allows third party applications to access the iTunes library via a .XML file. Palm could very easily create an app that accesses this file and would give Pre users a full and official way of accessing their content.
Palm was "spoofing" the Apple USB vendor ID which is against the rules of the USB-IF. Whether you think they are right or not, Palms methods are outrageously misguided.
Just to cover one of the analogies - What if Apple produced a printer and only let you use that one on a Mac? - well, sorry to say so but they have every right to do so.
Also - someone mentioned USB 3.0 and LightPeak. Apples role in the production of LightPeak was overstated, Intel were working on it already - Apple just wants something faster than USB so they can reduce the number of ports on a Mac. BOTH technologies are the property of Intel so it doesn't matter which one Apple prefers - they will still have to license. Apple did embrace USB 2.0 when it came out - if you remember they were one of the first companies to use USB 1.0 when it was released on the original iMac.
It's like the Motorola Mac clones from the 90s... Apple put a stop to them because, as others have said, they are first and foremost a hardware company, and that's where Steve Jobs gets most of his iBillions from. They aren't about to let Palm come back and take their money, are they?
http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/VID_Only_Form_withCCAuth_02042009.pdf said:
I would say that is clear cut.
It doesnt matter how much Apple makes - as long as they are not a monopoly (there isnt, the competition is massive, Apples market share in the music distribution is about 25 percent, being number one doesnt mean much when the market is as large as it is). As long as the market has such vigorous competition and choice for the consumer exists, Apple can do whatever they want.
It may not be the nicest approach, but Apple, like any other business looks at the entire picture and decides what will make them money. Right now Apple doesnt think that removing an advantage is the right move for them.
Were those Moterolas part of Apples official clone program - I forget which ones were? Regardless, even back then cloning was done as part of a legal licensing program that Apple and other vendors agreed to individually. Apple terminated that agreement when it was up for renewal and that ended the legit cloning.
I think they where, yes, not certain though.
You make a good point there, too, in that even when other companies used to use Apple's stuff, it was done legit.
The bottom line, though, is that iTunes is owned and made by Apple, they can do what they like with it.
Exactly. It doesnt matter what Palms intentions are. They are advertising something that they have no business advertising.
Man I can not believe the ignorance and insanity on this forum lately. What is with you people!? Where is everyone's critical thinking skills?
Apple is NOT a monopoly and here's why:
Apple makes their own operating system to run on their own computer hardware to allow their own devices to seamlessly integrate with it. It is a tightly integrated "closed" system, but not a monopoly. If Apple's market share of the Mac was 95% and they prevented other companies (Nokia, Motorola, RIM, Palm) from allowing their own sync software to be installed on Mac OS X, then that would be a Monopoly... this is why Microsoft lost in court for being a monopoly back in the day; because they licensed their OS to other companies' computers with the unfair deal that you could not buy said computer (from Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc.) without a Microsoft OS installed (no Linux allowed) nor can you install a third-party browser, which at the time was Netscape. And considering at that time, they [Microsoft] had a 98% market share of computers, it was an extremely unfair monopoly which is why Netscape initially brought it to court (if you wanted to use your Netscape browser at that time your choice was to only install it on the 2% of other computers available in the world, being Mac OS 9 or Commodore Amiga) but Microsoft lost and now you can buy a PC and install Linux and Firefox.
But as for the phones, the reality is, you have plenty of choices. If you like the Apple ecosystem, you are free to buy an iPod/iPhone and use iTunes to sync your music. If you don't like it and would rather have a Nokia, Motorola, RIM, etc. but own a Mac, they each have syncing software to still sync your music. If you have a Windows PC, then yay for you, you are in the 94%(?) majority and you can use Windows Media Player to sync your music (though each of those phones companies still have syncing software for Windows as well except for Palm's Pre) and in all cases you can buy your music from wherever you like, a CD from a store, mp3s from Amazon, Napster, eMusic, etc.
It's only Palm that isn't playing by the rules. It's only Palm that is trying to "trick" the system into thinking it's Pre is an iPhone/iPod. This is morally wrong, unethical and illegal. If they were truly competitive, they would not only make their own "sync" software (like every other phone maker does) but make their own Music Store application to compete against iTunes, just like Microsoft is doing with the Zune... that's fair competition, but instead, they [Palm] are trying to cheat the system due to their own laziness(?) or out of spite(?) and you bunch of ignoramuses are blaming Apple!?!? Insane.
Apple is NOT a monopoly and here's why:
Apple makes their own operating system to run on their own computer hardware to allow their own devices to seamlessly integrate with it. It is a tightly integrated "closed" system, but not a monopoly. If Apple's market share of the Mac was 95% and they prevented other companies (Nokia, Motorola, RIM, Palm) from allowing their own sync software to be installed on Mac OS X, then that would be a Monopoly... this is why Microsoft lost in court for being a monopoly back in the day; because they licensed their OS to other companies' computers with the unfair deal that you could not buy said computer (from Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc.) without a Microsoft OS installed (no Linux allowed) nor can you install a third-party browser, which at the time was Netscape. And considering at that time, they [Microsoft] had a 98% market share of computers, it was an extremely unfair monopoly which is why Netscape initially brought it to court (if you wanted to use your Netscape browser at that time your choice was to only install it on the 2% of other computers available in the world, being Mac OS 9 or Commodore Amiga) but Microsoft lost and now you can buy a PC and install Linux and Firefox.
But as for the phones, the reality is, you have plenty of choices. If you like the Apple ecosystem, you are free to buy an iPod/iPhone and use iTunes to sync your music. If you don't like it and would rather have a Nokia, Motorola, RIM, etc. but own a Mac, they each have syncing software to still sync your music. If you have a Windows PC, then yay for you, you are in the 94%(?) majority and you can use Windows Media Player to sync your music (though each of those phones companies still have syncing software for Windows as well except for Palm's Pre) and in all cases you can buy your music from wherever you like, a CD from a store, mp3s from Amazon, Napster, eMusic, etc.
It's only Palm that isn't playing by the rules. It's only Palm that is trying to "trick" the system into thinking it's Pre is an iPhone/iPod. This is morally wrong, unethical and illegal. If they were truly competitive, they would not only make their own "sync" software (like every other phone maker does) but make their own Music Store application to compete against iTunes, just like Microsoft is doing with the Zune... that's fair competition, but instead, they [Palm] are trying to cheat the system due to their own laziness(?) or out of spite(?) and you bunch of ignoramuses are blaming Apple!?!? Insane.
Man I can not believe the ignorance and insanity on this forum lately. What is with you people!? Where is everyone's critical thinking skills?
Apple is NOT a monopoly and here's why:
Apple makes their own operating system to run on their own computer hardware to allow their own devices to seamlessly integrate with it. It is a tightly integrated "closed" system, but not a monopoly. If Apple's market share of the Mac was 95% and they prevented other companies (Nokia, Motorola, RIM, Palm) from allowing their own sync software to be installed on Mac OS X, then that would be a Monopoly... this is why Microsoft lost in court for being a monopoly back in the day; because they licensed their OS to other companies' computers with the unfair deal that you could not buy said computer (from Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc.) without a Microsoft OS installed (no Linux allowed) nor can you install a third-party browser, which at the time was Netscape. And considering at that time, they [Microsoft] had a 98% market share of computers, it was an extremely unfair monopoly which is why Netscape initially brought it to court (if you wanted to use your Netscape browser at that time your choice was to only install it on the 2% of other computers available in the world, being Mac OS 9 or Commodore Amiga) but Microsoft lost and now you can buy a PC and install Linux and Firefox.
But as for the phones, the reality is, you have plenty of choices. If you like the Apple ecosystem, you are free to buy an iPod/iPhone and use iTunes to sync your music. If you don't like it and would rather have a Nokia, Motorola, RIM, etc. but own a Mac, they each have syncing software to still sync your music. If you have a Windows PC, then yay for you, you are in the 94%(?) majority and you can use Windows Media Player to sync your music (though each of those phones companies still have syncing software for Windows as well except for Palm's Pre) and in all cases you can buy your music from wherever you like, a CD from a store, mp3s from Amazon, Napster, eMusic, etc.
It's only Palm that isn't playing by the rules. It's only Palm that is trying to "trick" the system into thinking it's Pre is an iPhone/iPod. This is morally wrong, unethical and illegal. If they were truly competitive, they would not only make their own "sync" software (like every other phone maker does) but make their own Music Store application to compete against iTunes, just like Microsoft is doing with the Zune... that's fair competition, but instead, they [Palm] are trying to cheat the system due to their own laziness(?) or out of spite(?) and you bunch of ignoramuses are blaming Apple!?!? Insane.
Bang on, but to see MS and fair competition in the same paragraph has to be a world first!
Well, they [Microsoft] are playing fair now, because they know better... but that's why it's astonishing Palm is pulling this crap. It's gotta be just out of spite (due to the Pre team being ex-Apple employees.)